Saturday, September 10, 2016

How human rights can win Duterte’s war - In the past two months, news and police reports have catalogued over 2,400 drug-related killings

In the past two months, news and police reports have catalogued over 2,400 drug-related
killings.

The
Philippine National Police (PNP) claims initial victory in the war against
drugs with their tough approach, reporting a 40 per cent decrease in crime
compared to last year’s record. The Commission on Human Rights (CHR), on the
other hand, raises red flags, urging the police to adhere to due process and
investigate the spate of bloody encounters with suspected criminals.

Public
disagreement on Duterte’s war against drugs has been rife.

On the
one hand, the Duterte fever continues.

A few
weeks after assuming his post, the President had a 91 per cent trust rating – possibly
indicating that the majority of Filipinos support his approach. A cursory
look at social media posts illustrate public acceptance of the war’s
“collateral damage”, that is, the killing of some innocent people for the sake
of putting an end to the alarming drug problem.

Human
rights lawyers and a handful of opposition politicians emphasised the lack of due process amid the spate of killings.
In early August, the former CHR chair turned senator, Leila De Lima, led a
Senate investigation of the killings.

Duterte
responded by discrediting De Lima, raising issues about her “sordid personal and official life” that tie
her to drug syndicates. Duterte supporters also charged the current CHR chair
Chito Gascon of bias as a long-time Liberal Party boss tied to the camp of
former President Noynoy Aquino.

Public
commentators have reflected on ways to move forward.

Sociologist
Nicole Curato underscored the importance of
accountability, whether institutional accountability by the police or
accountability in the public sphere, where citizens owe each other explanations
for their views.

Human
rights scholar Jayson Lamchek urged progressive groups to carefully
examine the killings in the same way they investigate the extrajudicial
killings (EJK) among their ranks. Civil society groups could launch an
independent truth commission and conduct investigations.

There are
a number of pathways to make these investigations happen.

First,
well-established human rights groups like Karapatan and Task Force Detainees of
the Philippines (TFDP), and their networks already have systems in place for
similar investigations.

TFDP has
released a statement condemning the killings and
calling for an independent fact-finding body. But it is Karapatan, associated
with leftists from a mainstream national democratic movement that supports
Duterte, which is uniquely placed.

Political
scientists Ronald Holmes and Mark Thompson have opined that the critical appetite of such
leftists may have been dampened by Duterte’s offer of cabinet positions and
peace talks. But if Karapatan could embark on this project without jeopardising
their engagement with the Duterte administration, they may well be the decisive
voice that could sway Duterte towards a more human rights-respecting approach.

Second,
international human rights groups practice similar investigations and could get
involved. This, however, may not be easy, as Duterte calls this “unwelcome meddling”. Civil society groups
should urge the Duterte administration to accept the involvement of
international groups to deepen the legitimacy of investigations.

Third,
the justice movement iDefend, formed specifically in response to Duterte’s campaign, offer
legal services to victims. These services could lead to investigations, similar
to human rights investigative missions.

Civil
society-led investigations could build on existing lists of the killings. Establishing links
between human rights groups and victims’ families is the next major task.
Suspected drug offenders are presumably not members of political organisations
networked with human rights groups. The justice movement iDefend could bridge
human rights groups and victims’ families.

The independent
investigation’s findings will be important because they could help reshape the
debates on the war against drugs and the issue of human rights. Civil
society-led investigations will support and validate the investigations of the
CHR and PNP.

It could,
most importantly, clarify who is at fault. Police forces who truly defended
their lives would be vindicated. Persons mistakenlyidentified as drug offenders would be
cleared. Erring police forces would be charged. By following possible leads,
unidentified assailants would be pursued. It could also establish cases where
the criminals themselves are killing each other to silence their peers.

These
independent investigations could enrich the data by “humanising” the numbers,
whether among suspected criminals or the police ranks. Social researchers could
contribute significantly in this aspect. “Humanising” the numbers is important
because criminals or suspected criminals are often wrongfully portrayed to be
less human and undeserving of due process.

Justice
for each case should be served. Equally important, credible information is
necessary for the public to affirm, question, or change their beliefs about
their fellow citizens.

Civil
society groups in the Philippines, known to be strong and dynamic, are well
placed to embark on this project. We need the information now to act, and we
need information in the future to do better in upholding the principle that “no
person shall be deprived of life…without due process of law”.

Emerson M Sanchez is a PhD candidate at the
Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance in the University of
Canberra’s Institute for Governance and Policy Analysis.